Edward Balls: The Government's goal is to halve the number of people without access to a bank accounts. We have established a £120 million financial inclusion fund and an independent financial inclusion taskforce, which has recently reported to me that we are making good progress towards that goal. I can tell the House today that we have appointed two new members of the taskforce: Bridget McIntyre, the UK chief executive of Royal and Sun Alliance, and Danielle Walker Palmour, director of the Friends Provident Foundation.

John Healey: As chair of the all-party BBC group, I accept that my hon. Friend is more interested in the size of the licence fee than its statistical classification. However, he follows these things closely, so he knows that the licence fee has risen by 15 per cent. above inflation since 1997. He knows, too, that the BBC's income has risen above that because of the growth in the number of households and improved clamping-down on evasion of the licence fee. We can settle the new licence fee for the next period at a level that is fair to the BBC and to the licence fee payer, and that allows the BBC to lead and fund the digital switchover, while sure that it is available to everyone in the country.

Jack Straw: On the first item that the hon. Gentleman raises about the Iraq survey group, we accept that that is an important review and, as I have told the House, the Prime Minister will answer questions here for half an hour next Wednesday. The hon. Gentleman asks for a debate as well. I cannot promise that there will be a debate on Iraq, or foreign policy more generally, before Christmas, but I shall certainly note that he has made a request for one after Christmas.
	The hon. Gentleman also asks whether we can have better opportunities to debate estimates. The Modernisation Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the use of non-legislative time in this House—which I think is eccentrically distributed at present—and I hope that he will put forward his own evidence on that, as I think he has raised an important issue.
	I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the BBC licence fee, and on his final point, on which I think it is fair to say that he was blowing his own trumpet—

George Mudie: Last week, the Leader of the House turned down a request for a debate on home helps no longer being provided for many frail and vulnerable people. At the same as that he turned down that request, a 90-year-old war veteran in a wheelchair was in my constituency office because he had been assessed as being ineligible for a home help. How can a warm-hearted, generous Leader of the House such as my right hon. Friend grant a debate on fisheries next week, but refuse one on the frail and vulnerable being denied home helps?

Douglas Hogg: Given the Prime Minister's shameful refusal to come to the House to respond to the Iraq Study Group report, we will have plenty of time to discuss future passport policy. Will the Leader of the House keep in mind early-day motion 336?
	 [That this House notes that it is the intention of the Government that from the Spring of 2007 all first-time applicants for a passport shall present themselves for a personal interview and that from 2009 all applicants for a passport, including renewals, shall present themselves for an interview; further notes that the numbers involved are very great, being over 650,000 in 2007 and rising to an annual figure of around 6,500,000 in 2009 and beyond; believes that the provision of 69 interview offices to meet the demand will be quite inadequate for the purpose; and calls on Ministers to reconsider these proposals, in any event to greatly increase the number of interview offices that will be available, and to abandon the general requirement that applicants for renewal of passports shall submit themselves for a personal interview.]
	The proposal for personal interviews for all passport applicants, including renewals, is a catastrophe waiting to happen and the House needs to discuss it so that we can call on the Government to change their policy.

James Purnell: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman will not be voting against the measures. I was looking at the exchanges from last year, when he was teasing my predecessor about welfare reform. It is interesting to look back. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were dithering about incapacity benefit reform. We are now legislating on it. He said that the Government would do nothing about the Turner report. We have now brought forward a Bill on it. He said that the Government would do nothing about the Child Support Agency. We have a White Paper due shortly. It is quite clear that, over the last year, there has been real progress on welfare reform. We are legislating to implement the things that he said last year we would do nothing about. I am glad that he recognises that and that the Opposition support us on quite a lot of this.
	In answer to the hon. Gentleman's detailed questions, I think that the rate of inflation that he referred to is the pensioner poverty index, which is a technical measure. It is related only to the proportion of pensioners who get most of their income from the state—75 per cent., I think. Of course, the vast majority of them are on pension credit and their pension credit will go up in line with earnings. We are the first Government to do that. They used to have to live on £68.80; it is now going up to nearly £120. We have committed to continue to do that in relation to earnings. In fact, we are going to legislate for that. I am sure that the Conservatives will join us in voting for that to continue to be uprated in line with earnings, because that is the certainty that the poorest pensioners in our country deserve. Of course, there is always more that we can do on pensioner poverty. However, it is worth remembering that when we came to power there were more than 3 million pensioners in poverty. Now there are fewer than 1 million. That has been achieved only because of the policies that we put in place—policies that the Opposition have opposed at every single stage.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what more we could do to increase take-up. We are doing exactly that. I am happy to provide him with a briefing on the pensions transformation programme, which is one of the leading programmes on that in the world. It is making a significant difference. The National Audit Office, which reported on the Pension Service recently, made it clear that good progress had been made. It made some suggestions—in particular, about how we can reach the poorest pensioners in our society and how we can make sure that pensioners claim all the benefits that they are entitled to—which we will look at. I urge any Member of the House who is worried about this matter to go on a visit to look at how the local service is helping people to claim their benefits, and to see the real progress that is being made and the way that that is transforming the incomes of some of the poorest pensioners in our society.
	As part of that programme, we are responding to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about council tax benefit. We want more pensioners to be able to claim that and there is a radical new way for them to do so. There is now a three-page form where there used to be a 26-page-form. Claims can be made over the phone in a matter of minutes. We are looking forward to that starting to make a big difference. As I said in my statement, we are already paying out £30 million extra in backdated claims because of the data matching exercise that we did.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of incapacity benefit reform. As he knows, there is a major Bill going through the House on that. I thought that he was slightly churlish in not acknowledging the fact that there are now 900,000 more disabled people in work than there were before and not acknowledging the great success of pathways to work, which is recognised by independent experts as one of the most successful programmes anywhere in the world for people who are on inactive benefits.
	The hon. Gentleman finished by talking about fraud and simplification, which is an important subject. Our simplification unit is constantly looking at ways of simplifying benefits. For example, we have just announced a radical simplification of the state second pension system, which will mean that people will know that they will get £1.40 a week extra in retirement for every year that they care or contribute. We are always looking for opportunities to simplify the system, not least because that can help to reduce error and to deal with fraud. It is worth remembering that, before we came to power, the Tories never even measured what fraud was going on in the system. We have reduced fraud in income support and jobseeker's allowance by two thirds. That is another area where we have made significant progress and one that I hope that the House will welcome.

Philip Dunne: I take on board your earlier comments about trying to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I represent a rural constituency. As most hon. Members appreciate, concerns about affordability are not restricted to urban areas. In our sparsely populated rural area we experience many problems similar to those in urban areas. The main difference is lack of delivery in rural areas. House building has focused in and around urban areas, and funding from the Government to support affordable housing has followed. That was brought home to those of us who serve on the Public Accounts Committee—it is good to see other members of it here—earlier this week when we considered the National Audit Office report, "A Foot on the Ladder: Low Cost Home Ownership Assistance", which forcefully made the point that house prices are rising fast and incomes are relatively static, especially in rural areas, and the problem is getting worse.
	The NAO identified £112 million of efficiency savings that could be made from the implementation of the Government's policies on supporting affordable housing. Redeployment in the way that the NAO suggests would help more than 4,000 people into affordable housing. I hope that the Department will take note of that and try to implement some of the recommendations.
	I have recently been lobbied by the Midlands United group of housing associations, which has made a submission to the Chancellor for the comprehensive spending review, pointing out some of the impact of the lack of priority afforded to the midlands, especially rural areas, in recent years. The east and west midlands have almost one fifth of the country's housing stock but receive less than 15 per cent. of public funding for housing. Last year, just under 30,000 new homes were built in the midlands, but only just over 3,200 were affordable homes. That is not good enough. The needs of the area are acute.
	One reason for the lack of priority is that no funding has been provided through the Government funding mechanisms for key workers who live outside London, the east and the south-east. That means that, of the £470 million that the Government spent last year on their affordable housing schemes, £221 million was spent on key workers, but not a single pound was spent outside those areas. None of that was spent in the midlands or in the north. One reason for that is that we are labouring under an excessively centralised housing allocation. The new regional spatial strategies grant unelected regional assemblies the ability to allocate houses according to their priorities. Not surprisingly, that tends to focus house building and growth on the larger population centres. For example, in the west midlands, of housing is being allocated to the urban areas, leaving the rural areas to pick up the scraps.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) that we should consider local determination based on local priorities, and provide much more flexibility for local authorities to decide how many houses they should build and where they should build them.

Karen Buck: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), the Chair of the Select Committee, on its report, and on the fact that the Committee is also undertaking an inquiry into the social housing element. I shall be concentrating on social housing in my speech today. Like other hon. Members, I want to emphasise that a key issue is supply. We have seen a 30 per cent. fall in lettings in the social housing sector since 1999-2000, and a decline in the overall stock in the social rented sector of 238,000 units, mostly as a consequence of the right to buy.
	We have seen a welcome upturn in new housing provision recently, particularly in London but also in other parts of the country, but this has to been considered in the context of a continuing fall in supply that outstrips provision. Last year in London, for example, 6,037 additional affordable homes were constructed, but 11,549 were sold through the right to buy. It is important that we consider both sides of the equation and concentrate on the broader picture if we are to address what is nothing less than a crisis in the provision of social housing to meet the needs of our population.
	I want to make a couple of remarks about the impact of the fall in provision of social housing on community cohesion, a subject that is dear to my heart. There is no doubt that many cities—London in particular—are experiencing an exacerbation of community tensions as a consequence of the competition for the scarce resource of housing. We must also recognise that the impact of homelessness and overcrowding falls disproportionately on black and minority ethnic communities. The figures show that 12 per cent. of white households live in overcrowded accommodation, while 35 per cent. of black and minority ethnic households do so. The figure for Bangladeshi families is 62 per cent. The impact is disproportionate. Not only do our minority communities—particularly our Muslim communities—bear the brunt of housing need, but the settled migrant communities and white households in parts of London that are experiencing changes in their communities as a result of population movement are themselves deeply anxious about those changes and resentful of the fact that their sons and daughters are unable to obtain properties either to buy or to rent.

Greg Hands: I am a member of the Select Committee that produced the report, although I was not a member of the Committee for the duration of the inquiry. I, for one, do not agree with all the report's findings, but I hope that it has been a helpful contribution to what is becoming a more extensive and pressing debate. I am also vice-chairman of the all-party arm's length management organisations group, and I represent a constituency in which about a third of housing stock is social housing, which is well above the national average but round about the London average.
	My position is to support in general more house building. It seems that some of that building will inevitably have to be on greenfield land, which I support somewhat reluctantly, although it is not the same as supporting construction on green belt land, about which I have severe reservations, as I do about the Government's approach announced earlier this week.
	My constituency suffers badly from the phenomenon of lack of affordability of private housing. The  Evening Standard on 4 December included an article entitled, "Has it ever been harder to buy a house in London?" The picture that accompanied the article is of Wingate road in Hammersmith W6. According to the caption, a four-bedroomed house with garden, with an asking price of £750,000, was sold for £866,000 within a week. Affordability is a very large issue in my constituency. In central London, the average home price, as distinct from house price, is about to break through the £500,000 barrier.
	I also want to reflect on another phenomenon that is getting coverage and interest at the moment: flight from London. That is a growing problem, and a report in the  Evening Standard today says that about 250,00 people per annum are leaving London. My constituency has one of the highest population turnover rates in Britain of 20 to 25 per cent. each year. It is also now the second largest constituency in Britain in terms of population, after the Isle of Wight. Therefore, a lot of people are moving out, but even more are moving in.
	My constituency is also the second youngest in Britain after Battersea, and is among the top 10 for the location of young professionals. I want to address many of my comments to the problems that face young professionals and young families in getting on the housing ladder, including the private rented sector, in London and the south-east.

Brian Iddon: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that this Government have done far than the Conservative Government to refurbish clapped-out stock?

Mark Todd: I am intrigued by my hon. Friend's reference to risk. I am sure that he is right that the Government did not prescribe that scheme trustees should advise their members on risk, but he phrased that remark in such as way that it implied that they were advised that they should not describe the risk of their schemes or any issues relating to that. I am a member of a scheme, and I can remember being advised by trustees of risk issues relating to it. Is my hon. Friend not mistaken in the way he expressed that point?

Alan Simpson: In truth, it ought not to be me speaking in this debate, but my constituent Brian Wilson, who is one of the pensioners who had their pensions stolen. He has turned out to be an incredibly valuable source of knowledge to me. I suspect that virtually all hon. Members have someone like Brian Wilson in their patch. If they do not, they should count themselves lucky to have missed out on the problem, but they are also missing out on an education as to where we went wrong.
	It is puzzling to understand why we should still need to hold such debates, because if we had followed a principle of "three strikes and you're out", the Government would already be out. The comprehensive and damning report from the parliamentary ombudsman sets out why the Government are responsible—not for the collapse of schemes, but for failing to set a rules framework for the schemes that made secure what the Government promised was secure. A report from the Public Administration Committee pretty much endorsed that conclusion, and it endorsed the call for the Government to intervene to set the matter fully, not partly, right.
	On the deliberations held in the High Court, only this week, in the case brought by the pensioners, the Government received an almighty rollicking from the High Court judge for failing to produce an outline of their defence until what was almost literally the last minute. They finally did so on Monday night. The words of rebuke uttered by the High Court judge on Tuesday morning, and the grovelling presentation made by Government legal representatives, demonstrated how poor a position the Government are in. When successive independent verdicts ultimately trace the line of responsibility back to the Government, the Government cannot say, "We just don't care about those independent judgments; we won't accept responsibility for redressing the balance, whatever form that balance takes."
	It is with sadness that I approach our debate, because ultimately the courts will require the Government to accept the responsibilities set out by the ombudsman. As a result, those pensioners will be failed not just by the Government but by Parliament, which will be failing in its duty of scrutiny if it does not tell the Government of the day that they must accept responsibility, and if it does not introduce measures to provide full redress.
	I am pleased that it has been established that the matter does not rest solely on the Government's shoulders. In fact, it stems from the provisions put in place after the Pensions Act 1995, and the guarantees made by the Conservative Government that were endorsed when Labour came to power in 1997. It cannot be argued, however, that the Government fail to understand the nature of weaknesses and deficiencies that were built into the scheme that they put in place. After Maxwell, the actuaries advising the Government expressed doubts on several occasions about the weaknesses of the pension guarantee. The executive summary of the review of the minimum funding requirement published in May 2000 stated:
	"there is a large and worrying gap between the level of security which the MFR test actually delivers and the public's perception of what it will deliver".
	The report went on to say:
	"We recommend that, in addition to the MFR test, there should be a security measure which is clearly disclosed to members...Members would be informed that the MFR test differs from a true security test and does not give 100 per cent. security, as they currently believe."
	Much of the confusion that has emerged in debates is rooted in that belief.
	People who argue that the Government are responsible have never claimed that they were responsible for the failures of the schemes. However, the Government failed to put in place an adequate rules base for the functioning of the schemes; they failed to disclose to members the rules that would give preference to existing pensioners, rather than non-pensioner contributors; and they failed to disclose that the guarantee was not 100 per cent., or that members would probably reclaim only 50 per cent. of their funds.
	There is no point quibbling about people's distrust of the Government, and people's wish to check information elsewhere, because in the post-Maxwell climate, Government assurances had enormous importance. We failed the Ronseal test—the notion that the product does what it says on the tin—because we told people that their pension was secure when we knew, because the actuaries told us so, that that was not the case.

Robert Flello: Will my hon. Friend clarify a couple of points? First, back in the mid-'90s, when legislation was introduced post-Maxwell, it was indicated that pensions would be safe from somebody doing something underhand to steal them, not that pensions would be safe if the underlying investments or the company supporting the pension scheme did not do very well. The second point—

David Laws: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points. His constituents share the view of many people outside the House who have seen what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South called a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" process in relation to the Government's position on this issue. We find the Government still determined to resist the conclusions of a three-stage process. First, the ombudsman prepared her report in a way that fed back to the Department her developing conclusions, but that did not persuade the Government. Then we had the highly critical report from the ombudsman, and now we have a unanimous and extremely critical report from a cross-party Select Committee.
	We could continue to rehearse some of the detailed debates that the ombudsman and the Select Committee reflect on in their reports, but that would be difficult to do in the detail that some of the issues deserve in the 50 or so minutes that we have left. It is worth reflecting, however, on the strength of the conclusions that the ombudsman and the Select Committee have reached. The Chairman of the Select Committee reminded us of the terms in which the ombudsman put her conclusions. She concluded that the Government had provided information to the people who had lost their pensions which was "inaccurate", "incomplete", "unclear" and "inconsistent". It is hard to imagine a more decisive, unambiguous and critical description of the information provided by the Government.
	The ombudsman's report went on to state:
	"I have found that maladministration was a significant contributory factor in the creation of financial loss...Nothing in DWP's submissions persuades me otherwise."
	That was a conclusion from the first part of her process. She went on to reinforce the point about her own position when she said that
	"Parliament has decided that it is my role—and not that of any party to a complaint—to determine what constitutes maladministration."
	That is a fair point. Many of us would feel that the Government had a responsibility, after a process in which they had been given every opportunity to comment on and refute the allegations and concerns that the parliamentary ombudsman was looking into, to take far more seriously the conclusions that the ombudsman has reached, and which have been reinforced by the Select Committee.
	Despite being a cross-party body, the Select Committee has produced a report that echoes the criticisms of the ombudsman and, I believe, sides entirely with the ombudsman on every major point of dispute. It states:
	"We agree with the Ombudsman that maladministration occurred. Government information about pensions was deficient and reasonable people would have been misled... the Government should have considered the Ombudsman's recommendations properly, rather than immediately assuming that they would place large burdens on the public purse."
	In language whose critical tone is similar to that used by the ombudsman, the Select Committee points out that it has conducted its own investigations and taken its own evidence. It also states:
	"We believe that the Government is being, at best, naïve and, at worst, misleading."
	That is a very strong conclusion for a cross-party Select Committee to reach, particularly given that—as many of us who have served on Select Committees know—in circumstances of this kind Committee members representing the governing party are often under pressure to water down conclusions that are especially critical of the Government. The terms of the report and its conclusions show that there must have been a very strong conviction among the Committee's members about the Government's handling of the matter.
	The Committee also reflected on the way in which the Government had decided to deal with the ombudsman's conclusions. In the ninth of its conclusions and recommendations, it says:
	"We share the Ombudsman's concern that the Government has been far too ready to dismiss her findings of maladministration. Our investigations have shown that these findings were sound. It would be extremely damaging if Government became accustomed simply to reject findings of maladministration".
	As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said, the Government have undergone a three-strikes process involving the initial consultations with the ombudsman, the ombudsman's report and a cross-party Select Committee report. In the light of that, I would expect the House and the Select Committee to be immensely disappointed by the Government's response to the Committee. On the issue of the ombudsman's position, they respond thus to the criticisms made of them:
	"The ombudsman has, and will continue to have, the total and unqualified respect of the Government."
	It is one thing for the Government to respect the ombudsman; it is another thing for them to cast aside and ignore major recommendations affecting thousands of people when an ombudsman's report has trailed through all the evidence, and has been reinforced by a Select Committee of the House. If the Government are going to take future reports by the ombudsman seriously, they cannot afford to give the impression that advice in such reports will be accepted in small cases in which small issues and small amounts of money are at stake, while conclusions with a much greater impact on Government finances can simply be cast aside.
	In their response, the Government repeated the highly questionable—if I may describe it in that way—allegation, or assertion, that the financial assistance scheme is a good enough replacement, and the changes to it debated in the other place yesterday an adequate back-up, for the individuals who have lost their pensions. The response says:
	"The Government agrees there should be a significant package of support and believes that FAS, as extended, constitutes such a package."
	The hon. Member for Cannock Chase gave a detailed explanation of all the ways in which the financial assistance scheme is deficient in relation to the pension protection fund, and all the ways in which the headline statistics in the scheme relating to the proportion of pensions that people can expect to be returned to them are let down by the proportion of the total pension package that is returned. In the Committee's report, the hon. Gentleman has also described all the ways in which the FAS is deficient. We debated the issue yesterday with regard to new regulations to improve the FAS. The improvements are welcomed by Members on both sides of the House, but they are still a long way short of adequate compensation.
	The Minister acknowledged that the Prime Minister was questioned on that specific issue yesterday. In response to a question from one of his hon. Friends, it seemed that the Prime Minister left open the possibility of further changes and improvements to the scheme. He said:
	"I agree that it is important to keep the terms of the scheme under review".—[ Official Report, 6 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 301.]
	I hope that that was not simply the sort of comment that Prime Ministers make under pressure, as a way of fobbing of their own Back Benchers who are concerned about injustices of this type. When the Minister responded to my question about the Prime Minister's commitment, he did so in rather lukewarm and ambiguous terms. He said that the Government keep all their policies under review and will continue to do so. That was not particularly cheery and it rather made me think that the Prime Minister had been giving a brush-off rather than a hope of real improvement.
	Perhaps we should not be so gloomy, however. The Minister looked unimpressed when the hon. Member for Nottingham, South described some of the ways in which the financial assistance scheme could be improved, and some of the ways in which a fairer compensation package should be delivered. I remind him that his predecessors were similarly unimpressed when the arguments for such a scheme were first made. At that stage, the Government did not want to give way on the issue. Eventually, they found the money to introduce a scheme, and then maintained that it was good enough. Yesterday, we debated the new scheme and the improvements to be made. Ministers always say that improvements to such schemes are unaffordable, and go on saying that until they are forced to make changes and improvements. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire made a helpful suggestion to the Minister, and demonstrated how Governments can make rather elegant U-turns if they want to do so. I seem to recall that the Government of which he was a member had a habit of making quite a few U-turns, not all of which were elegant, but he showed how Governments, if they wish to do so, can change their opinion.
	Given the Government's formal response, I do not have high hopes that today's ministerial summing-up will take on board the criticisms made by the Select Committee and the ombudsman. I hope, however, that the strength of opinion expressed in the House during the debate, and the strength of opinion in a cross-party report, will cause the Government to keep the issue under review. I hope that the Prime Minister's comments yesterday will allow further improvements to be made to provide a fair package of compensation to people who have lost their pensions under such circumstances.

Michael Penning: I think and hope that the Government have listened to the compelling arguments made by all the speakers this afternoon in this very important debate, which has sadly been cut short, not least by an obviously orchestrated campaign by the Government Whips Office to intervene in order, it would seem, to put the ombudsman on trial. However, I shall not waste time discussing that; the members of the public who have been listening to this debate, and the 700 members of the former Dexion scheme, will have heard that for themselves.
	I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee and to the ombudsman for a brave report and for sticking to their guns. There is an old-fashioned phrase that is not heard much these days: natural justice. Their report is an attempt to secure natural justice for many of our constituents and their families and loved ones, who have had their pensions stolen from them.
	I became a Member of this House only some 18 months ago, but approximately five years ago the campaign team for the former Dexion workers approached me and showed me the documentation that they had been given over the many years that they had worked for Dexion. They left that documentation with me and it did not take me long to realise that they had a very strong case, in the light not just of the recommendations and actions of this Government, but of those of my own Government in the period since 1995. The leaflets were flawed; that was my view before the election, and the reason why I have worked tirelessly to help them.
	The 120,000-plus people whose pensions were affected are not just numbers. We have heard about the fantastic work that Ros Altmann has done on behalf of the campaign group, and I pay tribute to Ros today. These are ordinary people who were going about their business; in my company's case, they had worked for the company for a very long time. They had done the right thing. They had paid into a Government-recommended, perfectly safe pension scheme, so that they would rely not on state benefit, charity or a handout from a scheme, but on a pension scheme that they had purchased on behalf of their families and loved ones.
	Marlene Cheshire—a delightful lady—had to tell her husband David on the day he died that the compensation had come through and that everything was okay, so that he would pass away thinking that everything was okay for her, and that she had been left with the money. The Minister met the widows group that I brought to him. The stories that they tell are massively distressing. Marlene is one of 400-odd members of such schemes who receive some money from the financial assistance scheme. The Minister knows how much she gets—£20 a week. If the decimal point were shifted, that would be somewhere near what she should have got.
	I am not saying that the taxpayer should pay everything, and nor are the former Dexion workers campaign group, the ombudsman or the Select Committee. What we are saying is that we need to come up with a plan. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) has come close with the ideas that he put forward today, some of which I was going to offer myself. I shall raise other issues. For instance, the schemes are still being forced to purchase annuities. Why? How much is left in the schemes? Perhaps the Minister can tell us when he winds up the debate, because the figure is missing and there is a lot of money still being administered by the trustees.
	Many of the unclaimed assets that the Chancellor thinks that he can use are from pension schemes in insurance companies. What better use could there be for that money than to compensate those wonderful people?

Ben Chapman: I am delighted to have secured this debate on internet gambling, because I think that the subject is very important. I am not a great expert on the internet, but I know of people who are involved in internet gambling and worry about the situation. I speak without having consulted such people, but I hope that they understand that I share a concern which others have expressed.
	There is an adequacy of accumulated evidence and expert opinion to suggest that the issue should be a matter of concern for a large number of people, extending to more than those who practise internet gambling. It may seem a little anachronistic to term internet gambling "a vice", but if that is what it is, then that is what it is—although gambling is not the oldest vice, it is certainly well up there.
	I do not want to be negative; I want to be positive—and we are, as they say, where we are. As I am sure that the Minister will say, internet gambling is here to stay, and, to be frank, we had better get used to it. However, I want to sound a note of caution about some things that concern me, because we are, in a sense, stepping into the unknown. I also want to put forward some thoughts about things that I think are within the Government's power to effect and regulate.
	The Government set out their position early on with regard to internet gambling and, to their credit, they have remained consistent. The House of Commons Library has said this about gambling and internet gambling:
	"Gambling is not something that can be regulated out of existence whatever its dangers: traditionally, gambling regulation was based on the physical premises in which gambling took place...the internet has made such regulation impractical; in the face of such hard facts the best course of action for Britain is to permit online gambling from British-based websites in the knowledge that such gambling can be subject to British regulation and will offer security to British punters that will discourage them from trusting their luck (and money) to overseas operators."
	Few would take issue with that point of view. Indeed, the Government have been supported in their approach by the Salvation Army, the Methodist Church and GamCare, among others.
	The Government have also said, however, that they want the UK to become a centre for the online gambling industry. That aspiration has, of course, been thrown into sharp relief by the passing of anti-gaming laws in the US, which prohibit banks from accepting requests for payment from gambling websites. The industry's potential is massive. Last year, $12 billion was bet on sites around the world, which offer games such as poker, blackjack and roulette and slot machines, and £1 billion of that was staked in this country. Many operators will be looking to Britain to fill the void left by the US, and it is understandable that UK plc should seek to profit economically, but many people will be uneasy with such an aspiration.
	A study commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport found that on a conservative estimate the number of online gamblers is about 1 million people in the UK staking on average £1,000 each. A recent "Panorama" programme, however, contained claims from a further study suggesting that that figure is a massive underestimate. That study stated that 5.8 million people—one in 10 people in the UK—log on to sites every month.
	For some, the situation has proved to be very profitable. Some people—I suspect that they are a minority—have turned professional and earned huge sums of money, but for others the results have been devastating. Citizens advice bureaux have reported some extremely disturbing cases, albeit in relatively few instances. One man gambled on the internet and lost £200, having seen a TV programme on online gambling. He became so obsessed about the need to recover that £200 that he now owes more than £50,000. Another bureau saw somebody who ran up £30,000-worth of online gambling debts in 12 months, using one credit card to pay off another. That person is applying for bankruptcy. Many people may find it hard to imagine that worthy organisations such as GamCare and the Responsibility in Gambling Trust, no matter how well funded, would have the tentacles to prevent punters from slipping into such a vortex of addiction.
	The point is that gambling on the internet is an inherently isolated pursuit, unlike gambling in the social context of a casino. Typically, those gambling on the internet will do so alone. The dangers of acting on impulse are thus increased. Dr. E. Moran from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who has many years of experience in this field, including involvement with the establishment of Gamblers Anonymous, lists several well established psychological effects of gambling, ranging from habit forming caused by small but regular prizes to an unrealistic assessment of the player's chances of winning. Users may be unaware that they are racking up large losses, because they are given occasional wins as an incentive to keep them locked in. The availability of credit on many sites means that users lose sight of their debt, which contributes to the temptation to chase it. Extensive studies have shown that the psychological and physiological effects on those who participate in gambling encourage the chasing of losses.
	It may be said that it is a small minority who are afflicted by these conditions of self-delusion and that it is the responsibility of the gambling industry and the Government to target those people and give them help. That is true, but my fear, and that of others, is that a few years down the line we may find that what is currently a minority has grown significantly. In 2002, an inquiry in Australia found that one third of the industry's total revenue was derived from "problem" gamblers.
	Given that people are faced with a barrage of bright lights and flashing images offering the possibility of big winnings, it may be unhelpful to talk in terms of "problem" or "vulnerable" gamblers, because that implies that anyone else is somehow invulnerable. Reading through Government papers on the subject, one gets the impression that if only the punter had enough information they could be transported to a state of calm objectivity when deciding whether to risk each stake—but gambling can be glamorous, exciting and sometimes very fast. There is likely to be regular success, which tends to blinker the user to his or her long-term losses and encourage participation. The fact is that internet gambling is conducive to addictive behaviour. We can say at the very least that not all who take part make an informed choice all the time.
	Education and transparency are important, but are they enough? We surely need more and better restrictions on under-age children gaining access. The recent licence regulations issued by the Gambling Commission are welcome in their requirements for age verification, but there may be gaps. What can be done, for example, to stop children gambling via internet services on mobile phones? For obvious reasons, we need to take steps to ensure that phone credit cannot be used to stake money. Across the board, we need more warnings that players have spent too much money, and we need to look at restricting the amount that can be staked in any one period of time. The provision for punters to "self-exclude"—to inform the website that they wish to be prevented from taking part—is dependent on individuals recognising that they have a problem and furthermore taking steps to tackle it. "Pathological" gambling, as it is termed, is not so easy to tackle.
	What assurance can my right hon. Friend give me that the banks and credit card companies will be fully involved in identifying problem gamblers and that credit will not be granted so easily by the websites themselves, and in the form of credit cards? We need to support, financially and through close involvement with the regulators, all the organisations, such as GamCare, that work with those who need help. I am pleased that that appears to be forthcoming, because it is needed. The establishment of the Responsibility in Gambling Trust is also welcome, and it is good that a target of £3 million a year to fund its activities has been set. However, am I alone in thinking that having members of the industry, even in a minority, on the board, is at least questionable? Expertise is one thing, but perception of vested interest is another. It should be remembered that the organisation was originally set up by the industry and known as the Gambling Industry Charitable Trust.
	I see no reason why the partnership formed with the Economic and Social Research Council to conduct research, for example, could not have been with the Gambling Commission. By all means let us have a body charged with research and educating the public, but should not that be funded by a levy on the industry, but be separate from the industry? Surely that is the only way to ensure rigorous independence—perceived and actual—and to give the public full confidence in its activities and strategy.
	Even if we accept the Government's strategy of damage limitation by means of a tightly regulated UK market, it is less easy to understand why restrictions on advertising internet gambling are to be relaxed from next year. No matter how closely the regulations are drawn up to protect children and those at risk, advertising and, to a lesser extent, sponsorship is designed to entice those who would not otherwise opt to participate, and to encourage those already involved to play more.
	I have discussed this matter with Ofcom, because I consider the distinction between sponsorship, which is currently allowed, and advertising, which is not, to be doubtful. It seems to me that, irrespective of whether a form of advertising acts as a direct incitement to purchase a product, advertising and sponsorship want the same outcome—increased sales.
	A proliferation of companies has sponsored, for example, InterCasino with "Football Tonight" on Sky. Others have sponsored football teams. There is a particular worry about football. For example, I understand that one company has sponsored Aston Villa. Companies are out to maximise profits, and a big part of that is attracting new customers—from competitors, but also from those who have never gambled. A leading academic on marketing strategies confirmed that, and said:
	"By definition in this relatively new market, there will be potential customers who are not yet familiar with online gaming. Marketing off-line will seek to draw such people into this new and entertaining world and thus deliver new value to the company. Typical strategies might focus on making entry easy into online gaming".
	It is one thing to push for a set of regulations designed to lure players away from potentially unscrupulous operators, but we should not encourage greater participation. Surely banning advertising in itself would not have repercussions such as driving people underground. It remains within the powers of the UK Government to ban advertising, and they should do that.
	Certainly the Government should take immediate action against companies that have breached existing rules. Despite assurances in November last year that online gambling companies would face prosecution for flouting the law, no one has so far been prosecuted. The law continues to be widely ignored. For example, 888.com recently offered the chance of a seat at the Aussie Millions poker tournament in Melbourne for anyone who downloaded the poker software and completed stages of a free tournament.
	Earlier in the year, the same company offered free flights to anyone who opened an account. I am told that  The Independent newspaper hosts a gaming section on its website offering inducements of up to £500 to make deposits when signing up. Those are only a few examples, and even if those concerned could make a case that they were operating within the letter of the law, they are surely not operating within its spirit.
	Will my right hon. Friend give me an undertaking that the law will be rigorously enforced now, and that those who infringe it will be punished severely? Furthermore, if he will not consider a ban on advertising, does he think it appropriate—even with the enhanced protection of the new regulations—that when the Act comes into force next year, such inducements will be legal?
	We need to be cautious about the next few years. As I said, I am fully aware that in terms of direct regulation, we will be in a much better position in September next year than we are now. It is right and proper that the Government have taken the lead in efforts to establish international standards for the regulation of online gambling, and I congratulate them on doing it. I do not think that the road that the United States has followed is the right one.
	I call on the Government to commit to doing four things in the run-up to September. They should ensure that the industry gives more warning to players and restricts access to under-age people. They should also ensure that regular authoritative research is carried out to monitor the situation, as well as assessing the burden placed on health services, charities such as Citizens Advice, and others. They should consider whether the Gambling Trust is, and is seen to be, as independent as it should be, and they should take immediate steps against unlawful advertising, and seriously consider a ban.
	We in Britain are entering new territory—a territory in which demand for gambling is being actively stimulated. Gambling online is but one form of this, but because of the internet's ease of access and increasing pervasiveness, it has the potential to be the most pernicious. I am not suggesting that there is any harm in the occasional flutter. Nor am I seeking to be a killjoy. Prohibition would be illiberal and, more to the point, impossible to enforce. But the spirit of the Gaming Act 1968 is worthy of preservation. Gambling, unlike many other regulated activities, is deserving of special consideration because of its inherent addictive properties. We should not be in the business of allowing it to be promoted unhindered.